I never trust 3rd part stuff that mess with things like graphics drivers. But Radeon Pro seems legit. But at the same time, adding features not meant to be run is risky.

Click to expand...

I've been using ATT and Radeon Pro for years ( CCC was always a basketcase for one thing or another in my experience). They (ATI Tray Tools and RadeonPro) have more dedication on the part of their devs than does AMD's own Catalyst writers...but then I was never a big fan of Terry Makedon, under whose stewardship, CCC went backward IMO (now ominously part of the APU driver team)- and caused many people like myself to look to a full-time alternative to CCC some years back.

/Guy tagged as Nvidia fanboy using ATT and RadeonPro since 2004 and 2008 respectively...OMGWFTGTFOSUVNSFW!!!

I've been using ATT and Radeon Pro for years ( CCC was always a basketcase for one thing or another in my experience). They (ATI Tray Tools and RadeonPro) have more dedication on the part of their devs than does AMD's own Catalyst writers...but then I was never a big fan of Terry Makedon, under whose stewardship, CCC went backward IMO (now ominously part of the APU driver team)- and caused many people like myself to look to a full-time alternative to CCC some years back.

/Guy tagged as Nvidia fanboy using ATT and RadeonPro since 2004 and 2008 respectively...OMGWFTGTFOSUVNSFW!!!

Click to expand...

I think CCCs problem is that it is written under .net framework. .net Framework is great in concept, but holds some unneeded junk that CCC doesnt need. nVidia's approach is much more subtle and convenient.

I think CCCs problem is that it is written under .net framework. .net Framework is great in concept, but holds some unneeded junk that CCC doesnt need. nVidia's approach is much more subtle and convenient.

Click to expand...

A bigger problem is that under a merged ATI and AMD, hardware and software groups are never homogeneous. Each design group worked within its own enclave, and acting somewhat independent of each other. As I noted in my AMD history article*, AMD has historically been a conglomeration of fiefdoms (generally reflected in employee reviews).
As ATI, the company had issues with drivers, but their solutions were fairly timely as measured against the competition. Once subsumed by AMD, the (ATI) software, R&D, and troubleshooting was forced into AMD's existing model, so getting anything done involved a certain amount of inertia (horizontally between departments and vertically through admin levels). Note the Grey Screen of Death issue (power states) that took over five months to even be recognised before AMD started to look into the problem despite the AMD Forums being inundated with posts and users filling out the technical support forms (inc. myself in numerous instances) - this was in part due to AMD's Forum having little actual recognition by AMD itself and largely staffed by part-timers and people with little direct affiliation or sway within AMD.

Yea honestly, im surprised at the differences ive noticed on it. Like with BF3, it already did fine at it, but now, the thing is locked at 60 perfect constant with Vsync off in-game and it seems to use my GPUS differently (unless ive just never noticed this which is possible lol) but my #1 GPU sometimes changes above the other 3 a bit but I never notice anything in-game and it just works no changes in the game period the whole time on every map ive tried so far (by this I mean the game just plays a constant smooth silk game).

Star Craft 2 HOTS Actually works right with the 4 GPUs now which is weird honestly. I don't know why, but Star Craft 2 WOL was fine but HOTS expansion does not like the 4 GPU's, now it honestly does not give and its 60 constant on Ultra.

Far Cry 3 just works better in general (Though honestly only played for about 10 minutes on this game) at least the feeling and according to MSI's FPS display and GPU usage meters. I might try this game for awhile though and see how well it performs with this.

I need to try creating and trying more profiles with this on my other games I play, but honestly, I was not sure what to expect, but theres a clear difference in performance in these games at least. I need to try out Bioshock infinite and see what happens on it later. But im shocked to say the least, where has this software been all this time...

But im shocked to say the least, where has this software been all this time...

Click to expand...

Front and centre- but unless you're a benchmarker, like tinkering with settings, or frequent enthusiast boards, the software largely passes by the mainstream - as does nHancer and Nvidia Inspector.
Anyone who is very serious about extracting the most from the hardware and has an interest in higher levels of game IQ ( such as OGSSAA/RGSSAA/SGSSAA/TrSSAA etc) pretty much needed third party software to force the settings- not that it works in a lot of cases...but then, you don't know until you try.

I would have loved to try RadeonPro when I had CrossfireX Juniper XT's.
Those cards pulled surprisingly good at 1080p right from release (when the 5870 was $400), I got my pair for $360 (XFX reference PCB) for a AM3 budget build (720 X3/770-G45/8GB RipJaw and that little setup was quite potent for what it was. The 720 X3's 4th core unlocks and holds steady at 3.5Ghz so I've kept that chip around, its in my HTPC right now pushing a GTX 570.

Yes man I agree with you partly there and mainly on SP,but personally not on competitive fps.I play lot of multiplayer shooters,but hate those big *** monitors on it.For me,the sweet spot for multiplayer fps is monitor between 19-20"(not more than 20") and especially maintaining that desired 60 fps target..But for SP,monitor size/hz does not matter unless you play on veteran level.

Guys just finished Bioshock Infinite,one of the best games I played till now..
It's not just a modern trend of generic corridor shooter as COD,BF,....but something special and very unique(I will not sprout any spoilers though)
Infinite unleashes the hidden potential of video gaming

Yes man I agree with you partly there and mainly on SP,but personally not on competitive fps.I play lot of multiplayer shooters,but hate those big *** monitors on it.For me,the sweet spot for multiplayer fps is monitor between 19-20"(not more than 20") and especially maintaining that desired 60 fps target..But for SP,monitor size/hz does not matter unless you play on veteran level.

I played on a 3d monitor that had a120hz refresh which was nice, but I felt it was not beneficial enough to warrant the extra gardware stress in 1080p. At that high refresh, most games no matter how optimized it seems will not hold 120 easily for awhile at least. 60 seems to be that magic number were at where it's possible to keep stable pretty easily.

Anywho, I feel we will hit a point where 120 or some other refresh is what we strive for next (like 30 used to be).

It will probably be around 2 generations more if cards before I think we will see that as a reality. (Note: I know some games and cards can handle it now, I mean like a point where a game comes out and that's what we test for is constant 120 or another fps)

Yes man I agree with you partly there and mainly on SP,but personally not on competitive fps.I play lot of multiplayer shooters,but hate those big *** monitors on it.For me,the sweet spot for multiplayer fps is monitor between 19-20"(not more than 20") and especially maintaining that desired 60 fps target..But for SP,monitor size/hz does not matter unless you play on veteran level.

Refresh rates are not limited by screen size. Refresh rates are limited by the pixel capabilities to change states.

Click to expand...

You won't find a 20" 120HZ monitor in the market.That's what I pointed out...Is't too hard to understand?!!
I am not comfortable playing competitive MP fps above 19-20" monitor and hence 60 hz(60 fps) is the best way to go for MP for me..